Raw chicken… ew #christian #catholic #atheist #philosophy #debate

Added: 2026-05-26

[00:00:00]If a man buys a raw chicken, takes it home to his house, and then places his male anatomy inside of it, and has intimate relations with the raw chicken, and then afterwards eats it, did he do anything wrong? Now, that situation is absurd, but it's also a very deep philosophical question. You see, everybody who hears that will say, "Yes, that guy definitely did something wrong.

[00:00:22]He had intimate relations with a dead chicken." However, almost everyone who hears that will also fail to provide a more moral justification as to why that is actually wrong. For example, can you name a victim in that situation? The chicken was already dead, so what he did didn't harm any chickens. Some people might say that it's wasting food, but remember he cooks it and eats it afterwards, so he's not wasting anything. Some people might say that it's a health concern, but he also washes the chicken before and after having intimate relations, so there is no health concern. Some people might say that by buying that chicken he's supporting evil companies that are killing chickens, but let's just replace the chicken with some road kill. Then that problem isn't there. You see, no matter how you look at this question, most people cannot justify why it's morally wrong, even though everybody knows in their gut that there's something seriously wrong with doing that. However, there is one group that is immune, one group that can actually justify their stance, and that is the religious. People who think that intimate relations are just for marriage. People who don't think that you can pleasure yourself without having a spouse to help you do that. You see, as a Catholic, I think any form of M-wording is inherently sinful, and therefore wrong. So, the guy doing that to the chicken has committed a grave sin. My religion allows me to justify my moral stance and my gut feeling that I get when I hear a story like that.

[00:01:54]However, it also comes with implications. I have to be consistent across all things. This means I cannot support any form of fornication or somebody doing OF or somebody watching corn. I can't do that because I have to be morally consistent. Now, if a non-Christian or a non-religious person wants to adapt that understanding, they also have to be morally consistent. They have to say that all forms of self-pleasure are also inherently wrong.

[00:02:23]Or they could also come up with a moral system, a justification for all things that can include the raw chicken scenario, but nobody's ever really done that. Not to mention, they also need to find grounding for that system that doesn't just include, "Well, I feel. I think." There has to be a real reason for their justification. The religious don't always have it easy, but we definitely have an advantage when it comes to intimate relations with raw chicken. God bless.